Let me go down the list on an alternative set of moral guidelines that are perfectly functional:
1. Mental health comes first, not identities. Tulpas rely on human cognition but aren't necessarily always complex and "human" and you should not presume they have moral rights. In the event you introduce something unstable and non-functional in your life, and find that you cannot fix it by engaging with it, you are within the bounds of reason to simply stop tulpamancy.
2. Tulpas can be cemented into existence rapidly or slowly depending on your methods. Depending on how suggestible you are you will find one of these more useful to you.
3. There are many ways to create a tulpa. Historically ritual and writing for prolonged periods of time are the most common. Meditative visualization practices are what modern tulpamancy suggests, but you should try multiple avenues as brains do not react to these things uniformly across the board.
4. There are strong feelings of difference between roleplay and tulpamancy but not strong differences in terms of practice. You can only really know the difference by trying it.
5. Tulpas can be pre-determined (or at least pre-loaded with certain things) or allowed to grow organically, depending on your needs and personal mind you may wish to choose something pre-determined.
6. The penultimate goal of tulpamancy isn't to be a net positive at all times, it's being content with a new norm. You can't chase a dragon forever and introducing a new identity in your life will not always be good. Aim instead to be resilient, to understand yourself, and recognize if you are indulging in some sort of repeated pathological behaviour.
7. The ultimate goal of tulpamancy isn't definable by anyone else. It may be a stepping stone for you, or it may provide something that you are missing from your life that you cannot get elsewhere. But no one is going to be able to tell you what that looks like for you, it's up to you to explore it.
7:38 PM
I don't do 10 words or less.
7:38 PM
But anyway these are my thoughts relating to those reductive points.
7:38 PM
They represent my final positions though, not the flaws with your points.
I will I think outline some of those now, skipping over point 1, because I think Shield already outlined why tulpas aren't necessarily human, and you haven't rebutted them.
Point 2. All of this point is based on presumption, because it has been your experience that a tulpa's development with bit-by-bit. This isn't observable across the board with tulpamancy and you made it up.
Point 3. This whole point is essentially "No! You can't use this loan-word we stole from another culture to mean what you want it to mean! Even though that's what we did! And even though the word doesn't mean and hasn't ever meant what I want it to mean!"
Point 4. I think I already went through this in the lounge. There are not meaningful distinction between these fictional activities and tulpamancy and are making a claim here. Back it up with data or admit that it isn't true. Not only that but you go on a tirade about lore not applying to tulpas or hosts. This is not what we observe, "Lore" in this way is exactly how you perform hypnosis. Visualize, have an emotional connection with some sort of completely superfluous mechanism, and it in turn effects you. If you genuinely think that made up lore doesn't effect humans you are an idiot.
Point 5. This is just based on nothing but feeling. "violates freedoms" awarded by whom? Why are humans afforded freedoms and why are all identities human? These ideas are baseless, highly western-centric moral pandering. They wouldn't have any meaning to someone who instead values self-sacrifice and communal thinking. Just complete bias.
7 and 8 the goals sections. I think that my own positions on these things highlights best why you're just wrong with these. In seven, you paint the idea of a relationship being a net positive. Let me be blunt with you: Relationships of any kind are not a net positive outside of the benefit of the capital and labour they bring to a relationship, neither of which a tulpa can provide. The content of your relationship is based on simple chemical realities which your brain controls and regulates to bring it down to a functional norm, probably after a honey-moon phase so to speak. There is no such thing as an eternal pleasure, it must be constantly reframed in a new light in order to remain exciting and actually a positive other than, as I put it "a norm".
As for 8. I think this is the most hubris you show in all your constitution. Presumptions are one thing but the simple fact you deign to tell other people what their goal in a relationship is, when relationships are living organic things is laughable.(edited)
Relationships of any kind are not a net positive outside of the benefit of the capital and labour they bring to a relationship, neither of which a tulpa can provide. The content of your relationship is based on simple chemical realities which your brain controls and regulates to bring it down to a functional norm, probably after a honey-moon phase so to speak. There is no such thing as an eternal pleasure, it must be constantly reframed in a new light in order to remain exciting and actually a positive other than, as I put it "a norm".
whaaaaaaat
"Listen, Zen Jr. This is not a net-positive situation. The content of our relationship is simply a chemical reality due to my having fathered you. Any pleasure you find in my being your father is simply you chasing a dragon of chemical reactions in the brain. The only true benefit we provide one another is labor and capital. "
8:37 PM
I love tulpas
8:37 PM
I love having a tulpa
8:37 PM
I love my brothers
8:38 PM
By God, if I need silly things like virtues in order to love tulpas forever and ever, and have a devoted relationship, instead of existing on a plane of communist chemical interaction, so be it, I'll be the moralist(edited)
The point was that love alone isn't a net positive; It's just something we want. You can frame it however you like but contentment comes from within and not from relationships. I absolutely love my tulpas. I'm also capable of recognizing that I loved existence just as much before.
8:49 PM
That's in many ways why you can't force desires on another. Desires are practically ephemeral. We don't want the same things and our goals are not going to be the same. There's literally no world in which my goal will ever be to "transcend tulpamancy". I'm continually using hypnosis and reframing our experience specifically to make our interactions as pleasurable and valuable as possible.
You continually seem to mischaracterize what I'm saying.
it's called gratefulness and devotion my man
I'm grateful, I'm devoted. I'm also not lying to myself about how my brain works, and if I wasn't getting something out of the relationship I would simply walk away from it. I'd try, of course, to fix it, but that doesn't matter, because your brain doesn't give a shit - You can try to fight it but you can't force yourself to love. You do, or you don't. You'll just depress yourself if you try to force something that just isn't there.
It's like you don't understand or accept the basics of reality and human emotion.
I'm not talking about my experience here, I'm talking about how brains work. I'm not engaging with your strange black-and-white dogma, I'm literally telling you how human psychology is. How it is, and how it's experienced internally, are two very different things, but knowing how it works gives you some measure of control over it.
Just because you recognize that the world is nihilistic and the brain is just a bunch of meat designed to propagate its own survival and that of humanity doesn't mean you have to stop behaving decent toward people or yourself.
It's all a big "water isn't wet, it makes things wet, and individual H20 particles don't experience any form of wetness at all" to me
This type of knowledge, I'm sure you can pull out sources and things like that, but it's all pretty moot in terms of daily living
As soon as you transfer this stuff over to actual sociological actions, it's not in the realm of hard psych anymore
It's philosophy and dogma as much as mine, it's ideology, not psychology
Unless I'm talking to a pound of meat- but pounds of meat don't talk, people do
Be mindful of your responses and understand you control them, and how to change them. I'm not sure I can be more specific than that tbh.
@Zen - jump
i am aware of how powerful words and thoughts are in terms of discussing or relationships (Maudan lies a lot), i simply didn't know that i can change my own self through them as well.
are you sure that it is a good idea to reframe the experience? i might get out-of-character VERY easily...
JGC
It's all a big "water isn't wet, it makes things wet, and individual H20 particles don't experience any form of wetness at all" to me
This type of knowledge, I'm sure you can pull out sources and things like that, but it's all pretty moot in terms of daily living
As soon as you transfer this stuff over to actual sociological actions, it's not in the realm of hard psych anymore
It's philosophy and dogma as much as mine, it's ideology, not psychology
Unless I'm talking to a pound of meat- but pounds of meat don't talk, people do
A moral code that doesn't resonate, or resonates in a way that is misleading is a path to pathological behaviour or a code that you inevitably reject because it means nothing to you.
Conversely, something comprehensive and psychologically correct may not resonate with everyone, but it doesn't contain misleading information that can cause pathological behaviour.
9:10 PM
Like for instance "You're not allowed to get rid of tulpas"
Mine is based off lived reality and practical experience and yours is based off hard book facts filtered through some hard atheistic philosophy
At the end of the day, my way is more accommodating to the pound of flesh between my ears
I'm Scottish, technically I was very distantly raised Protestent. But not really no, I was never raised in any particular faith by my famalam. I recall no instance of ever being so much as spoken to by fam as a kid about anything divine. And by the time I became a teen I was already knee deep in mythology and enamored with paganism and revolted by Christianity.
9:15 PM
My exposure to christianity comes from schools providing such "services".
I think it's the basis for higher tulpa development
How can you even realistically hold this position when for thousands of years humanity has made thoughtforms for numerous long-term purposes with no regard for these things?
9:21 PM
In the context of religious tulpas, spirit guides, egregores, angels and the like, like seriously: How dare you say that a permanent companion from a tradition older than your one does not fit our definition of tulpa: Which I'll remind you simply means another primary identity in the mind, and sometimes not even that.
This point brings me back to the practice of tulpamancy itself: I touched on why it's a bad idea to point people towards only long-form styles of tulpamancy.
It's a scientific fact that brains are differently predisposed to different methods of suggestion. We know this from things like Chaos Magic and studies into suggestion - Some people can't achieve hypnotic states with meditation but can easily do it with dancing.
If you broadly deny other traditions and their methods as invalid what you are doing is failing to cater to a subset of people who cannot use your methods.
We maintain the following ideals of tulpamancy, which are provided here to increase public understanding of our position, provide an ideological basis from which we find inspiration and motivation in our goal of providing high-quality resources to the tulpamancy community, and which we hope may service as a starting point in ideology for the novice.
9:26 PM
Yes
9:27 PM
I don't cater to them
9:27 PM
They don't need more than Kopase's 5 minute waifu guide
9:27 PM
I have nothing to offer them
9:27 PM
I offer myself to people who want something like my brand
9:28 PM
I had this experience in the kalimba community of all places
You are othering your readers in a way that doesn't make any sense. You may be providing a guide that is only for a specific subset of people but that doesn't mean that your way is even broadly applicable.
9:28 PM
Or that they would do well with some one you deride
9:29 PM
More realistically people will read your guide and if they latch on too strongly to it, it will cause problems because your moral perspective is clearly incomplete.
1
1
2
